New project

[PatM]

  Yes, that would be my theoretical limit give or take a little.

[sleek]

Gotcha. I do think its odd you dont factor in over all bow length, as that changes your string angle at the tips, and as a direct result, how much you are actually bending the bow. I do like how you have gone against the standard method of half a bows length though. I hope to see thay mantra disappear.

[Bayou Ben]

I'm rereading a bunch of no set tillering posts. In one Badger said,". Say you just braced the bow, check your weight at say 18", now excercise at 19", check weight at 18, excersice at 20" check weight at 18, excercise at 21" check weight at 18". Do this all the way to target weight at about 24'. "

Do you remove any wood during this?

In this sequence he isn't removing wood.  When he goes back to baseline draw, 18", the weight hasn't changed so he can now go one 1 inch further. 
When you go back to baseline and the weight has changed, then you need to do something (or accept set).  Reduce weight by removing wood evenly, or find where the limb could work more.  I normally like to gain an 1" or so after a wood removal session or when I go out 3 or 4 inches and my base line weight hasn't changed.  So I would set my base to 19" now and start over again. 

[PatM]

Gotcha. I do think its odd you dont factor in over all bow length, as that changes your string angle at the tips, and as a direct result, how much you are actually bending the bow. I do like how you have gone against the standard method of half a bows length though. I hope to see thay mantra disappear.

 That's just because I'm only using it as a broad gauge and not  looking much beyond that.    I make a bow longer so that I can get a long draw so it probably corresponds pretty well either way.
  I am also talking about bows similar to the one on this thread where the bending section is quite defined. Recurves and stiff tips.

[Woodely]

I guess you guys are in your own league here on this build.
Is this some sort of new Mathematical approach for tillering and bow building. Calculating weight, draw length, 13:17 bend/lever ratio and limb length according to some past experiments.  Is this better than tillering for Dummies. At the end of the day is the bow indestrucable built this way.

[sleek]

I guess you guys are in your own league here on this build.
Is this some sort of new Mathematical approach for tillering and bow building. Calculating weight, draw length, 13:17 bend/lever ratio and limb length according to some past experiments.  Is this better than tillering for Dummies. At the end of the day is the bow indestrucable built this way.

No, not indestructable in the least. As matter if fact, this builds it as close to the point of self destruction as possible, without crossing the line.  High performance is on the edge of limits. This method takes you there but carefully monitored wood conditions so damage doesnt sneak up on you, you stare at it the entire time. Its an extreme sport building this way.

[DC]

I guess you guys are in your own league here on this build.
Is this some sort of new Mathematical approach for tillering and bow building. Calculating weight, draw length, 13:17 bend/lever ratio and limb length according to some past experiments.  Is this better than tillering for Dummies. At the end of the day is the bow indestrucable built this way.

It's just a way of checking how you are doing for set. You go back and forth on the tree to try and catch any set as soon as it starts. Before you can actually see it. No math there. I'll go as far a grade school arithmetic but not math. My mind just glazes over when I see brackets and stuff. I still think the 13:17 is funny. It's so close to 3 to 4 but maybe the prime numbers made it look cool. Draw length according to working limb rather than total limb makes sense but I have to think about that some more. No rocket science, just shade tree engineering for those of us that just "have to know how things work". Does it make a better bow? Marginally. Won't kill a deer any deader. You might win more beer using these methods

[DC]

Sleek, I'll try and keep track as best as I can. I still haven't quite figured how I'm going to write this all down in an understandable way but we'll see. I'll be out there shortly.

[DC]

OK I've got it all trimmed up and temp nocks on. One limb took the glued in reflex a tad better so I'll make it the bottom limb for now. I put it on the tiller with a long string that hangs about 7"and pulled it to 9". Got 36# exercised a 10" about 20 times, back to 9", got 36# again. 10" was actually 47# so I went too heavy. Pic is 9"

[Bayou Ben]

Well you know you didn't hurt anything; the weight didn't drop at all. 
11 lb gain from 9 to 10"  .  I guess you know you have good early draw weight.
 

[sleek]

Oh boy the fun starts! Listen, i want to stress, keep an eye on those fades.  No movement in the inner limb until the last few inches of draw. Also, before going ANY further, trace the outline of the bow as it sits on something. This gives a base line to hold it to so you can see exactly where set is happening.  I trace the back, belly is fine though.

[sleek]

By inner limbs, i mean, 6 inches of inner limn should be left alone until maybe 5 inches of draw away, then the inner most hould barely move in the last 3 of draw.

[DC]

At least for now. When I remove wood do I exercise it before I set the new benchmark? I have traced it and have 4.25" reflex.

[sleek]

At least for now. When I remove wood do I exercise it before I set the new benchmark? I have traced it and have 4.25" reflex.

I always exercise,  but do it on the scale on the tree the first pull, and again after exersizing to get the results of it.

[sleek]

Now that you have traced it, every say, few inches of draw length gained, lay it on the outline and trace it with a different color, or look close. You will see where set starts and stay from that area.